Re: Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

by canada12 19.11.15 7:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:
I certainly do. Right down to the little white logo in the top left lens of the sunglasses.

What makes you think they're not the same sunglasses?
I think after you've put up the two images of the sunglasses that we should all really be able to agree that they are one and the same.

I tend to think, though, that they look more like a pair bought in one of Leicester's premier shopping malls before they left England, than bought 'on an open-air, market-style stall' on the beach front at Praia da Luz, as claimed on page 58 (hardback ed.) of 'madeleine', by Dr Kate KcCann

I agree with you there, Tony!

by TheTruthWillOut 19.11.15 7:30

I've just gone through your posts in this thread and disagree, BlueBag. You have in an angry tone dismissed anyone that questions the reflection with very little detail showing how the reflection is legit.

I'll bow out now and leave you to it. thumbsup

by Guest 19.11.15 8:21

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: What makes you think they're not the same sunglasses?

Primarily because the frame appears to be different - nor am I convince by a logo on the lens. I have a bit of a liking for sunglasses and can honestly say I've never seen a quality pair with a logo on the lens, on the arm certainly but not the lens. They do sometimes have a little plastic sticker on the lens which is easily peeled off after purchase. Could easily be wrong of course.

It is however beside the point, for all I know he could have been wearing Jane Tanner's glasses when the photograph was taken. The question I asked is why introduce a secondary pair of sunglasses into the discussion when Textusa has already confounded the subject beyond all reasonable logic. Experts have cast their professional eyes over the the last photograph without finding any obvious signs of manipulation, other knowledgeable contributors have shown quite clearly how it's possible for a vertical reflection to appear in a lens - without creating a conundrum of superfluous detail trying to prove some unnecessary point on the law of physics.

If you or anyone else can produce a tangible explanation as to why you think this photograph is fake, the sunglasses in particular as this thread is about Textusa's alternative viewpoint, then I will gladly reconsider. In the interim I'll leave you and like minded folk to your ingenious pondering, this discussion is going round in circles.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.11.15 8:54

I think this thread has been most informative.

It seems that several dozen people really believe the following:

A. That the purpose of the photoshopping was to make it look as though the McCanns were having family time together when in fact they were engaged in ‘adult’ activities all the time.

B. That it could have been a creche nanny that took a photo of Madeleine on her own by the pool (or maybe Kate).

C. That over two weeks after Madeleine was reported missing, Gerry and Amelie went with a photographer to the Ocean Club pool to take some photographs (Textusa suggests this was done on Friday 18 May).

D. Presumably other guests were asked to stay out of the way whilst the photographer took his pictures.

E. For some strange reason they did not include Sean in the photo session

F. Gerry and Amelie had to sit in EXACTLY the place where they now appear in the ‘Last Photo’.

G. Not only that, they had to calculate the exact moment in the day when the shadows would be of identical length to the shadows on Madeleine.

H. (And they couldn’t do any of this unless the sun was out)

I. (Either that or, back in 2007, the photographer had a computer program so sophisticated that it could work out exactly where the shadows would fall on Gerry and Amelie and photoshop the correct shadows in later)

J. (The photographer took a picture of Amelie where her right arm is barely visible, leading quite a few people to think that SHE had been photoshopped in some way)

K. (Despite Textusa saying that the photo of Gerry and Amelie is a genuine one taken on or about 18 May, numerous people think that either or both are photoshopped in some way (Gerry’s shadows, doesn’t look like he’s sitting on the pool edge etc.))

L. The photogrpaher took some pictures of Gerry with his sunglasses on, but at least one with them hanging on the front of his T-shirt.

M. In the studio they used the pic of Gerry and Amelie as a ‘base’ photo.

N. They then photoshopped Madeleine in.

O. They then realised that the photographer was reflected in the sunglasses.

P. That was unacceptable as it would prove that Kate didn’t take the photo.

Q. So they found a photo of Gerry with his sunglasses tucked into his T-shirt.

R. They ‘flipped’ the sunglasses on to his face.

S. They then had to photoshop in the side of his sunglasses over his ear (something that Textusa hadn’t noticed when devising her theory).

T. When the photographer had done all that, he would have two photos to match: (1) Madeleine on her own and (2) the one with Gerry and Amelie in.

U. He would have to match...
* the grass
* the paved area on which they were sitting
* the tiles around the pool
* the water in the pool
* the garden furniture
* the low stone wall
* the wall in the background
...all of it done in such away to fool three acknowledged experts in photoshopping.

In addition to that:

V. A top digital photographic expert, an internationally-known University Professor, says there is no evidence of
photoshopping.

W. So does another expert who runs a significant digital photoshopping business.

X. So does a photo editor in Sweden.

Y. A CMOMM member has uploaded a video on YouTube clearly showing how a vertical image on a sunglasses lens can be produced in similar circumstances to those on the Last Photo, and

Z. A list of 18 problems with Textusa’s theory has been posted and not one person who supports Textusa’s theory has replied so a single one of them.

Dozens of people seriously think that the above (points A to S) really happened.

Yes, I have learnt a great deal from this thread.

Indeed, to coin a phrase, I would say that for me this thread has been ‘a revelation moment’.

by Guest 19.11.15 9:04

@TonyBennett wrote: I think this thread has been most informative.

More aptly I would suggest exasperating - or failing that entertaining. When condensed into but a few words (splutter!), it all fits - to coin a Textusa styled phrase.

by missbeetle 19.11.15 9:06

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: What makes you think they're not the same sunglasses?

Primarily because the frame appears to be different - nor am I convince by a logo on the lens. I have a bit of a liking for sunglasses and can honestly say I've never seen a quality pair with a logo on the lens, on the arm certainly but not the lens. They do sometimes have a little plastic sticker on the lens which is easily peeled off after purchase. Could easily be wrong of course.

It is however beside the point, for all I know he could have been wearing Jane Tanner's glasses when the photograph was taken. The question I asked is why introduce a secondary pair of sunglasses into the discussion when Textusa has already confounded the subject beyond all reasonable logic. Experts have cast their professional eyes over the the last photograph without finding any obvious signs of manipulation, other knowledgeable contributors have shown quite clearly how it's possible for a vertical reflection to appear in a lens - without creating a conundrum of superfluous detail trying to prove some unnecessary point on the law of physics.

If you or anyone else can produce a tangible explanation as to why you think this photograph is fake, the sunglasses in particular as this thread is about Textusa's alternative viewpoint, then I will gladly reconsider. In the interim I'll leave you and like minded folk to your ingenious pondering, this discussion is going round in circles.

Serengeti glasses have their logo on the lens :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** 19.11.15 9:28

TheTruthWillOut wrote:I've just gone through your posts in this thread and disagree, BlueBag. You have in an angry tone dismissed anyone that questions the reflection with very little detail showing how the reflection is legit.

This makes me wonder if you've actually watched 'somni's YouTube video, which shows plainly EXACTLY how such a vertical image is produced.

Or maybe you have other reasons for deliberately not seeing the obvious.

by Guest 19.11.15 9:54

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: Serengeti glasses have their logo on the lens

I stand corrected! Thank goodness you're still around - and so quick off the mark, just think how long I would have remained in ignorance if not for you.

smilie

by TheTruthWillOut 19.11.15 10:44

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:I've just gone through your posts in this thread and disagree, BlueBag. You have in an angry tone dismissed anyone that questions the reflection with very little detail showing how the reflection is legit.
This makes me wonder if you've actually watched 'somni's YouTube video, which shows plainly EXACTLY how such a vertical image is produced.

Or maybe you have other reasons for deliberately not seeing the obvious.

What are you saying here? That BlueBag-Sonmi-Darren Ware are one and the same? It would explain a lot for me.

I'm just dumbfounded that BlueBag has stated that Textusa has to use:

Same sunglasses
Same Camera
Same settings
Same positions

Before even entertaining a discussion.

Yet Sonmi can use a flat piece of acrylic and toilet roll in very rough positions in a dim room and that's fine and good evidence for BlueBag (and you, I presume)

I mean, seriously?

by Guest 19.11.15 18:38

Dear TruthWillOut,

Is this junk or not?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A simple yes or no will do.

Cheers,

BB

by **Tony Bennett** 19.11.15 18:58

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
What are you saying here? That BlueBag-Sonmi-Darren Ware are one and the same?

No.

'somni' is Darren Ware, BlueBag is someone different (and not me). So that makes three of us.

Still waiting for even ONE person to challenge my list of 18 problems about Textusa's theory.

Tell me for example how - when Gerry and Amelie were photographed (on 18 May was it?) - their shadows matched the shadows on Madeleine so perfectly that forensic programs run by Prof. H. Farid and another expert revealed that they were an EXACT match.

Or maybe you just can't

by cedwards2 19.11.15 19:32

I fully expect I'll be banned again for daring to speak (although I'm still not entirely sure why I was banned in the first place) but I feel so strongly about this that I've re-registered just to make the point.

This thread shows a microcosm of all that is wrong with this case and the factions that have sprung up. There are people determined to see conspiracy or nefarious activities in everything and because they feel so strongly that they are right, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, they react strongly when their viewpoint is challenged. I've bowed out of most discussions on the whole case now as it's got to the point where those still actively involved in the discussion are now so entrenched in their views that they aren't even open to discussion and it rapidly descends into abuse and accusations of "being a closet McCann supporter" if you don't agree with their point of view.

I contributed quite a lot to a previous thread on the last photo. Reading back through it I was wrong on my theory of polarised glasses causing what I thought at the time was a rotated reflection. I am kicking myself now for not realising the real cause for the reflection and it seems so flaming obvious now when considering how the reflection would look with curved glasses and curved pool as demonstrated in the youtube video. Those who still doubt, consider this: If there was a flat mirror in place of Gerry's left lens, how would the reflection of the curved pool look? Yes, it would appear to curve away to the right from our point of view looking at the mirror. Now think about a curved lens and a straight edged pool... yes, it would still appear curved because the reflection of the curved lens would affect the straight line of the pool edge reflection. Now add the two together and what do you get? Curved edge, curved pool... voila.

The reflection argument is nothing short of nonsensical. To suggest that someone would go to all the trouble of photoshopping in some sunglasses and then make the ridiculous oversight of the reflection is just incomprehensible. Furthermore the issue is not whether it has been done, but whether it could be done.

I have had half a lifetime of working with digital media and have had to work with people who are incredibly skilled at photo manipulation. I myself am very, very good at it. I can spot a photoshopped image without too much trouble. There are telltale things that can be seen. There is one thing that I (and my colleagues) are often asked to do and that is photoshop in one person from one shot to another - make a composite image basically. The major issue with this is where there are fine hairs involved. Look at the high resolution image of the "last photo" and you can see lots of tiny hairs around Madeleine. Although photoshop has improved drastically in its capabilities of fine hair selection over the years, back in 2007 it really was not so good at this. I can say with absolute certainty that it would be impossible with the tools available at the time to place Madeleine on that background with the hairs in place like that. There is zero evidence of manipulation around those hairs.

"Aha!," you say, "but what if they had ANOTHER little girl sitting there and they ONLY CHANGED THE FACE!!?" Well, yes, that would be more possible to do than the task of overlaying the entire image on that background but, once again, there are fine hairs covering the area that just cannot have been achieved (and to be honest, would still be almost impossible to achieve even with today's tools) back at that time. To suggest that there may be secret unknown governmental photo manipulation programs out there that can achieve all this is, I'm afraid, only demonstrating a lack of understanding of how digital photos work. At the end of the day, the image is made of pixels that would need manipulating however they're done and to do so in a way that stands up to microscopic scrutiny just is not possible. This is a conspiracy theory too far. The "last photo" may not have been taken when it was claimed, but it has not been manipulated beyond that. I realise there will still be those on here that will not accept that - that's fine, but you should really be questioning why so many people with a lot of photo manipulation experience are saying the same thing. I also realise the answer to that question for many will be that we're all - including me - secret McCann supporters... ;-)

by Guest 19.11.15 19:56

Why would you get banned for that?

Makes sense to me.

by interestedobserver 19.11.15 20:08

I find it quite worrying that, at the moment, 55% of voters support Textusa's theory.

by canada12 19.11.15 20:19

cedwards2 wrote:
I have had half a lifetime of working with digital media and have had to work with people who are incredibly skilled at photo manipulation. I myself am very, very good at it. I can spot a photoshopped image without too much trouble. There are telltale things that can be seen. There is one thing that I (and my colleagues) are often asked to do and that is photoshop in one person from one shot to another - make a composite image basically. The major issue with this is where there are fine hairs involved. Look at the high resolution image of the "last photo" and you can see lots of tiny hairs around Madeleine. Although photoshop has improved drastically in its capabilities of fine hair selection over the years, back in 2007 it really was not so good at this. I can say with absolute certainty that it would be impossible with the tools available at the time to place Madeleine on that background with the hairs in place like that. There is zero evidence of manipulation around those hairs.

"Aha!," you say, "but what if they had ANOTHER little girl sitting there and they ONLY CHANGED THE FACE!!?" Well, yes, that would be more possible to do than the task of overlaying the entire image on that background but, once again, there are fine hairs covering the area that just cannot have been achieved (and to be honest, would still be almost impossible to achieve even with today's tools) back at that time. To suggest that there may be secret unknown governmental photo manipulation programs out there that can achieve all this is, I'm afraid, only demonstrating a lack of understanding of how digital photos work. At the end of the day, the image is made of pixels that would need manipulating however they're done and to do so in a way that stands up to microscopic scrutiny just is not possible. This is a conspiracy theory too far. The "last photo" may not have been taken when it was claimed, but it has not been manipulated beyond that. I realise there will still be those on here that will not accept that - that's fine, but you should really be questioning why so many people with a lot of photo manipulation experience are saying the same thing. I also realise the answer to that question for many will be that we're all - including me - secret McCann supporters... ;-)

Just a small point... I too have worked with Photoshop. Your argument about the "fine hairs" is only valid if attempting to place Madeleine in the picture without any additional adjustments. It's fairly easy to create "fine hairs" in Photoshop using a fine paint brush tool. You simply "paint over" the places where it's obvious, and you make it look like the "fine hairs" were always there as part of Madeleine's existing hair. It's always been easy to do that.

by cedwards2 19.11.15 20:49

canada12 wrote:
cedwards2 wrote:
I have had half a lifetime of working with digital media and have had to work with people who are incredibly skilled at photo manipulation. I myself am very, very good at it. I can spot a photoshopped image without too much trouble. There are telltale things that can be seen. There is one thing that I (and my colleagues) are often asked to do and that is photoshop in one person from one shot to another - make a composite image basically. The major issue with this is where there are fine hairs involved. Look at the high resolution image of the "last photo" and you can see lots of tiny hairs around Madeleine. Although photoshop has improved drastically in its capabilities of fine hair selection over the years, back in 2007 it really was not so good at this. I can say with absolute certainty that it would be impossible with the tools available at the time to place Madeleine on that background with the hairs in place like that. There is zero evidence of manipulation around those hairs.

"Aha!," you say, "but what if they had ANOTHER little girl sitting there and they ONLY CHANGED THE FACE!!?" Well, yes, that would be more possible to do than the task of overlaying the entire image on that background but, once again, there are fine hairs covering the area that just cannot have been achieved (and to be honest, would still be almost impossible to achieve even with today's tools) back at that time. To suggest that there may be secret unknown governmental photo manipulation programs out there that can achieve all this is, I'm afraid, only demonstrating a lack of understanding of how digital photos work. At the end of the day, the image is made of pixels that would need manipulating however they're done and to do so in a way that stands up to microscopic scrutiny just is not possible. This is a conspiracy theory too far. The "last photo" may not have been taken when it was claimed, but it has not been manipulated beyond that. I realise there will still be those on here that will not accept that - that's fine, but you should really be questioning why so many people with a lot of photo manipulation experience are saying the same thing. I also realise the answer to that question for many will be that we're all - including me - secret McCann supporters... ;-)

Just a small point... I too have worked with Photoshop. Your argument about the "fine hairs" is only valid if attempting to place Madeleine in the picture without any additional adjustments. It's fairly easy to create "fine hairs" in Photoshop using a fine paint brush tool. You simply "paint over" the places where it's obvious, and you make it look like the "fine hairs" were always there as part of Madeleine's existing hair. It's always been easy to do that.

You cannot draw fine hairs (that look believable) when examined closely using that method. If you can, demonstrate it by adding a few on the high res last photo. It will be easy to spot I'm afraid.

by cedwards2 19.11.15 20:50

BlueBag wrote:Why would you get banned for that?

Makes sense to me.

I'm likely to be banned for who I am rather than what I said, if you catch my drift.

by Liz Eagles 19.11.15 20:54

cedwards2 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Why would you get banned for that?

Makes sense to me.

I'm likely to be banned for who I am rather than what I said, if you catch my drift.

I did myself a favour a long while ago and stopped reading Textusa nonsense.

by Guest 19.11.15 21:05

interestedobserver wrote:I find it quite worrying that, at the moment, 55% of voters support Textusa's theory.

Yeah.. but how many are the same person?

by **Tony Bennett** 19.11.15 21:13

cedwards2 wrote:I fully expect I'll be banned again for daring to speak (although I'm still not entirely sure why I was banned in the first place) but I feel so strongly about this that I've re-registered just to make the point.

This thread shows a microcosm of all that is wrong with this case and the factions that have sprung up. There are people determined to see conspiracy or nefarious activities in everything and because they feel so strongly that they are right, even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary, they react strongly when their viewpoint is challenged. I've bowed out of most discussions on the whole case now as it's got to the point where those still actively involved in the discussion are now so entrenched in their views that they aren't even open to discussion and it rapidly descends into abuse and accusations of "being a closet McCann supporter" if you don't agree with their point of view.

I contributed quite a lot to a previous thread on the last photo. Reading back through it I was wrong on my theory of polarised glasses causing what I thought at the time was a rotated reflection. I am kicking myself now for not realising the real cause for the reflection and it seems so flaming obvious now when considering how the reflection would look with curved glasses and curved pool as demonstrated in the youtube video.

Those who still doubt, consider this: If there was a flat mirror in place of Gerry's left lens, how would the reflection of the curved pool look? Yes, it would appear to curve away to the right from our point of view looking at the mirror. Now think about a curved lens and a straight edged pool... yes, it would still appear curved because the reflection of the curved lens would affect the straight line of the pool edge reflection. Now add the two together and what do you get? Curved edge, curved pool... voila.

The reflection argument is nothing short of nonsensical. To suggest that someone would go to all the trouble of photoshopping in some sunglasses and then make the ridiculous oversight of the reflection is just incomprehensible. Furthermore the issue is not whether it has been done, but whether it could be done.

I have had half a lifetime of working with digital media and have had to work with people who are incredibly skilled at photo manipulation. I myself am very, very good at it. I can spot a photoshopped image without too much trouble. There are telltale things that can be seen. There is one thing that I (and my colleagues) are often asked to do and that is photoshop in one person from one shot to another - make a composite image basically. The major issue with this is where there are fine hairs involved. Look at the high resolution image of the "last photo" and you can see lots of tiny hairs around Madeleine. Although photoshop has improved drastically in its capabilities of fine hair selection over the years, back in 2007 it really was not so good at this. I can say with absolute certainty that it would be impossible with the tools available at the time to place Madeleine on that background with the hairs in place like that. There is zero evidence of manipulation around those hairs.

"Aha!," you say, "but what if they had ANOTHER little girl sitting there and they ONLY CHANGED THE FACE!!?" Well, yes, that would be more possible to do than the task of overlaying the entire image on that background but, once again, there are fine hairs covering the area that just cannot have been achieved (and to be honest, would still be almost impossible to achieve even with today's tools) back at that time.

To suggest that there may be secret unknown governmental photo manipulation programs out there that can achieve all this is, I'm afraid, only demonstrating a lack of understanding of how digital photos work.

At the end of the day, the image is made of pixels that would need manipulating however they're done and to do so in a way that stands up to microscopic scrutiny just is not possible.

This is a conspiracy theory too far.

The "Last Photo" may not have been taken when it was claimed, but it has not been manipulated beyond that.

I realise there will still be those on here that will not accept that - that's fine, but you should really be questioning why so many people with a lot of photo manipulation experience are saying the same thing.

I also realise the answer to that question for many will be that we're all - including me - secret McCann supporters... ;-)

@ cedwards2     I think this very honest account should be read by every single member and guest here, whether they are interested in the subject of the 'Last Photo' are not.

I am only one Moderator amongst quite a number, but as one who engaged with you in your previous spell here, and maybe disagreed with you (I can't remember the detail now either), there is nothing in your post to even make anyone think of banning you. Very much the reverse.

Your post is so important on the subject of the 'Last Photo' that I am not going to snip most of it, as I tend to do with longer posts, but I am going to leave it up in its entirety, also highlighting the bits that really matter (on the subject of the 'Last Photo') in bold black.

I agree in general with your observations about 'factions'. I think this applies to certain individuals who have studied the case, have a strong point of view, and maintain it at all costs, as do their followers. As you will have observed, this is not the case here - where different theories can always be discussed (but at the same time we try and reject the bad theories and embrace the good ones, as we are trying to do on this very thrad).

What you say about 'entrenched views' is I'm afraid right. I know I will be unpopular with some here, but I would strenuously maintain that all those who still maintain, for example, that  'Smithman was Gerry McCann' have such an 'enrtrnched' view - which, quite honestly, cannot by supported by the evidence.

But perhaps most of all I am uplifted this morning by your frank admission of having been entirely wrong about whether or not the 'Last Photo' was photoshopped (that may have had something to do with you being banned, again I cannot recall what that was all about).

Admitting error is hard to do, more so for some than others. You have done so with good grace and I really appreciate your words - highlighted in bold red.

That's it - welcome back yes

by Gaggzy 19.11.15 21:46

Tony Bennett wrote:I think this thread has been most informative.

It seems that several dozen people really believe the following:

A. That the purpose of the photoshopping was to make it look as though the McCanns were having family time together when in fact they were engaged in ‘adult’ activities all the time.

B. That it could have been a creche nanny that took a photo of Madeleine on her own by the pool (or maybe Kate).

C. That over two weeks after Madeleine was reported missing, Gerry and Amelie went with a photographer to the Ocean Club pool to take some photographs (Textusa suggests this was done on Friday 18 May).

D. Presumably other guests were asked to stay out of the way whilst the photographer took his pictures.

E. For some strange reason they did not include Sean in the photo session

F. Gerry and Amelie had to sit in EXACTLY the place where they now appear in the ‘Last Photo’.

G. Not only that, they had to calculate the exact moment in the day when the shadows would be of identical length to the shadows on Madeleine.

H. (And they couldn’t do any of this unless the sun was out)

I. (Either that or, back in 2007, the photographer had a computer program so sophisticated that it could work out exactly where the shadows would fall on Gerry and Amelie and photoshop the correct shadows in later)

J. (The photographer took a picture of Amelie where her right arm is barely visible, leading quite a few people to think that SHE had been photoshopped in some way)

K. (Despite Textusa saying that the photo of Gerry and Amelie is a genuine one taken on or about 18 May, numerous people think that either or both are photoshopped in some way (Gerry’s shadows, doesn’t look like he’s sitting on the pool edge etc.))

L. The photogrpaher took some pictures of Gerry with his sunglasses on, but at least one with them hanging on the front of his T-shirt.

M. In the studio they used the pic of Gerry and Amelie as a ‘base’ photo.

N. They then photoshopped Madeleine in.

O. They then realised that the photographer was reflected in the sunglasses.

P. That was unacceptable as it would prove that Kate didn’t take the photo.

Q. So they found a photo of Gerry with his sunglasses tucked into his T-shirt.

R. They ‘flipped’ the sunglasses on to his face.

S. They then had to photoshop in the side of his sunglasses over his ear (something that Textusa hadn’t noticed when devising her theory).

T. When the photographer had done all that, he would have two photos to match: (1) Madeleine on her own and (2) the one with Gerry and Amelie in.

U. He would have to match...
* the grass
* the paved area on which they were sitting
* the tiles around the pool
* the water in the pool
* the garden furniture
* the low stone wall
* the wall in the background
...all of it done in such away to fool three acknowledged experts in photoshopping.

In addition to that:

V. A top digital photographic expert, an internationally-known University Professor, says there is no evidence of
photoshopping.

W. So does another expert who runs a significant digital photoshopping business.

X. So does a photo editor in Sweden.

Y. A CMOMM member has uploaded a video on YouTube clearly showing how a vertical image on a sunglasses lens can be produced in similar circumstances to those on the Last Photo, and

Z. A list of 18 problems with Textusa’s theory has been posted and not one person who supports Textusa’s theory has replied so a single one of them.

Dozens of people seriously think that the above (points A to S) really happened.

Yes, I have learnt a great deal from this thread.

Indeed, to coin a phrase, I would say that for me this thread has been ‘a revelation moment’.

I just imagine some expert photoshopper being given the above list and tasked with pulling it all together, then saying something like, I tell you what. Why don't I just take that photograph from the Sunday, and change the date? A two-minute job. Then everyone will think the child was still around on the afternoon of the 3rd May. Is that okay with you, Gerry? Clarence?

by Carrry On Doctor 19.11.15 21:47

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I found your post straightforward and easy to follow, and provided an informed overview rather than the nit picking of questionable detail that has become so divisive.

I am no expert on photo shopping, and have always gone with professional opinion, which your post re-affirms.

Also, hats off to you sir (or madam ?) for admitting your error. Most refreshing.

by **Jill Havern** 19.11.15 21:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
cedwards2 wrote:I fully expect I'll be banned again for daring to speak (although I'm still not entirely sure why I was banned in the first place) but I feel so strongly about this that I've re-registered just to make the point.
@ cedwards

That's it - welcome back

I didn't even realise C.Edwards had been banned.

Yes, welcome back cedwards2.

by cedwards2 20.11.15 0:59

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
cedwards2 wrote:I fully expect I'll be banned again for daring to speak (although I'm still not entirely sure why I was banned in the first place) but I feel so strongly about this that I've re-registered just to make the point.
@ cedwards

That's it - welcome back
I didn't even realise C.Edwards had been banned.

Yes, welcome back cedwards2.

On checking it was Feb 2013 around the time of Tony's court case. I was trying to point out to people that their idea of how court cases worked was not necessarily how they actually did work. There was the usual frenzied volley of posts from people (Aiyoyo and Bobbin among them) accusing me of being disloyal, a secret agent, "batting for the other side" (oo-er missus) and god knows what else as I wasn't toeing the party line well enough. It all got a bit silly and Candyfloss (I think) banned me.

Having lurked on the site for a while it appears there are still outbreaks of infighting on here, which is a shame. It appears that those that remain to discuss are a bit battle-weary and quick to criticise those whose opinions differ from theirs.

It is hard (straying back on topic here) to argue against those who have "a gut feeling" about something as logical explanation is often brushed aside when it challenges deeply-held beliefs. I can't help but wonder sometimes if people who are on the McCann side of the argument feel the same frustration when they try to argue their case. The stream of bewildering theories on this last photo are scarcely believable at times and I'm sure are a rich source of amusement for those that want to label all sceptics "loonies".

by jeanmonroe 20.11.15 4:23

cedwards2 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Why would you get banned for that?

Makes sense to me.

I'm likely to be banned for who I am rather than what I said, if you catch my drift.

And YOU, cedwards2, 'are', whom, exactly?

Talking about 'being banned' after a few 'posts' seems a bit 'previous', to me.

Not the 'person' that SP says 'has to maintain and keep the 'abduction' story going, at all costs, ad infinitum' are you?

Oh well, just thought i'd ask!

by TheTruthWillOut 20.11.15 11:18

BlueBag wrote:Dear TruthWillOut,

Is this junk or not?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A simple yes or no will do.

Cheers,

BB

No.

About the "rules" you have imposed on Textusa or anyone who has the opposing view about the reflection?

Get Textusa to do a real analysis instead of the current cockeyed one.

Use:

Correct glasses
Correct camera with correct settings for focal length, magnification etc
Correct pool size
Correct photographer position

You know... exactly unlike the junk pseudo-science she has currently used

Why didn't/don't they apply to Sonmi/Darren Ware? If Textusa's effort is "junk" what does that make Darren's by your standards of science?

Cheers.

by TheTruthWillOut 20.11.15 11:51

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
What are you saying here? That BlueBag-Sonmi-Darren Ware are one and the same?

Tell me for example how - when Gerry and Amelie were photographed (on 18 May was it?) - their shadows matched the shadows on Madeleine so perfectly that forensic programs run by Prof. H. Farid and another expert revealed that they were an EXACT match.

Or maybe you just can't

Why would I need to? I have already said earlier in this thread (I think. You got me wondering now) that I don't believe it is a composite.

LP taken sometime before May 3rd.
Sunglasses lenses only photoshopped (for whatever reason). Grande Finale showed just how undetectable small changes can be.

I just don't understand Tony when I disagree about just one point of a subject you assume I agree with Textusa's theory completely.

by hogwash 20.11.15 17:31

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:
What are you saying here? That BlueBag-Sonmi-Darren Ware are one and the same?

Tell me for example how - when Gerry and Amelie were photographed (on 18 May was it?) - their shadows matched the shadows on Madeleine so perfectly that forensic programs run by Prof. H. Farid and another expert revealed that they were an EXACT match.

Or maybe you just can't

Why would I need to? I have already said earlier in this thread (I think. You got me wondering now) that I don't believe it is a composite.

LP taken sometime before May 3rd.
Sunglasses lenses only photoshopped (for whatever reason). Grande Finale showed just how undetectable small changes can be.

I just don't understand Tony when I disagree about just one point of a subject you assume I agree with Textusa's theory completely.

Quote: "Grande Finale showed just how undectable small changes can be". Unquote

Yes, but the two experts weren't shown a photo with the logo photoshopped out, they were shown the original photo which they both said was not manipulated but said it would be easy to change the date.

The photoshopped logo was undetectable to us because we're not experts and we also weren't using forensic equipment to test it.

Maybe that's the difference between experts and non-experts.

by Guest 20.11.15 18:53

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Dear TruthWillOut,

Is this junk or not?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

A simple yes or no will do.

Cheers,

BB

No.

About the "rules" you have imposed on Textusa or anyone who has the opposing view about the reflection?

Get Textusa to do a real analysis instead of the current cockeyed one.

Use:

Correct glasses

Correct camera with correct settings for focal length, magnification etc

Correct pool size

Correct photographer position

You know... exactly unlike the junk pseudo-science she has currently used

Why didn't/don't they apply to Sonmi/Darren Ware? If Textusa's effort is "junk" what does that make Darren's by your standards of science?

Cheers.

You think this is not junk?

That's all I need to know.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.11.15 19:34

TheTruthWillOut wrote:
Why didn't/don't they apply to Sonmi/Darren Ware? If Textusa's effort is "junk" what does that make Darren's by your standards of science?

You have obviously completely misunderstood the difference between the stated purposes, respectively, of Textusa and somni/Darren Ware.

Textusa stated her purpose in clear terms:  "The idea was to replicate the last photo".

As BlueBag has demonstrated in his usual uncompromisingly blunt language, she did not 'replicate' the 'Last Photo' in at least four major ways. 'Junk science' is a fully appropriate term to use.

somni/Darren Ware set himself a much more modest task: simply to prove that vertical lines could be produced in circumstances broadly similar to those in the Last Photo.

You must surely concede that he has fulfilled that task more than adequately?

Now to your theory:

You wrote:

QUOTE

1. LP taken sometime before May 3rd.
2. Sunglasses lenses only photoshopped (for whatever reason).
3. Grande Finale showed just how undetectable small changes can be.

UNQUOTE

So your theory is that the Last Photo was taken before 3rd May, that someone then changed the EXIF date and time data, and on top of that decided to shop in the sunglasses lenses?

I didn't think it was possible to come up with a dafter, more convoluted photoshopping theory than Textusa's, but it looks to me like you have just succeeded!

In case I have misunderstood you, could you please be good enough to explain your LP theory in more detail - it would help the debate.

You wrote: "Grande Finale showed just how undetectable small changes can be".

REPLY: I fully concede.

But how can you possibly compare adding a tiny bit of black to cover a tiny logo with:

* arranging a whole photo shoot to create a base photo
* lining up Gerry and Amelia in exactly the right position on the poolside...
* and in exactly the same position of the sun as produced the shadows on Madeleine
* then photshopping Madeleine in, and at the same time completely harmonising...
* the pool water
* the poolside terrace
* the small wall by the lawm
* the grass
* the far wall etc. and then...
* using a computer program to align the shadows
* flipping the sunglasses from Gerry's chest to his face, and finally
* photoshopping in the left side of the sunglasses over Gerry's left ear?

dontgetit

Textusa's revised theory, published 13 November, of The Last Photo - explained for further discussion

I've carefully read the explanation of Textusa's Last Photo theory of the composite of 3 images and I think...